Cobb: Court Not Misled

Nitpick: mislead -> misled

I am shocked to see they've reinstated Trackbacks at Evolution News and Views and Lies. For several months they neither permitted trackbacks, nor answered my emails about why they were disabled.

I agree with Worldwide Pants's nitpick, but note that the original fault appears not to have been Reed's, who only follows the court's erroneous use, which occurs at least twice.

The simple past tense of the verb "to lead" is "led," and this remains true when the words are used in combination with "mis."

I think the source of this ever-more-common error has something to do with the other meaning of "lead" (the noun meaning a heavy metal), which is indeed pronounced with the short "e" sound. Thus, most people appear to know, on some level, that the past tense should have the short "e" (red-led-wed-fed) sound, but they then erroneously assume it is OK to achieve this sound via the "lead" spelling, which does indeed have that sound, but only when used in its alternate, metallic meaning (and in such formations as the past tense of "read," "dead," "head," etc.).

Just another English trap for the unwary.

Nah, the court didn't make the mistake. (Those where typos in my transcription of the scan.) Someone at NCSE (or their source) made the mistake when they named the copy of the order that I got.

My willingness to assume that the court was at fault was, of course, based on the one judge's deep obtuseness during oral argument. I also assumed, since that jurist was the source of the misimpression, that his office was probably also behind this new order. In its own way, this was a reversal of the more common (and often erroneous) assumption that someone who can't spell, also can't think. Here, I was willing to assume that a judge who can't think, also couldn't spell.

So much for assumptions...anyway, somebody at the court deserves some credit for starting to dig out from under this screw-up. I have to wonder if the piercing clarity of the Dover ruling may not have begun to penetrate the fog in Georgia.

I don't know if anybody at the court diserves any credit for correcting the record. The lawyers for both sides had to submitt letters in respose to the accusations. These letters are what are responsible for the Court recognizing its error at this time.

Well, courts are prodded by many external factors, for better or worse. It'll be interesting to see what the eventual opinion has to say, and what the influence of Dover turns out to be.

Well, courts are prodded by many external factors, for better or worse. It'll be interesting to see what the eventual opinion has to say, and what the influence of Dover turns out to be.

Those where typos in my transcription of the scan.

Note to self: avoid typing on little sleep.

Motives, motives, motives. There is all this emphasis on motives. Now the courts not only have to worry about the motives of the public officials who decided to add the stickers, but also have to worry about the motives of members of the public who encouraged or supported the decision to add the stickers. This issue of motives has led to arbitrary and uneven enforcement of the Constitution's establishment clause.

The issue of motives in these establishment clause cases should be eliminated.

Some California employers who contested unemployment benefit claims argued that employees gave pretexts for quitting a job -- e.g., the relocation of a job beyond commuting distance -- rather than the real reasons which would have made them ineligible for benefits. So the state unemployment office came up with the following rule regarding the unemployment benefit eligibility of workers who quit their jobs: these workers are eligible if they quit the job under circumstances where someone who is truly desirous of keeping the job would quit, e.g., relocation of the job.

So I propose the following judicial standard regarding the motives of public officials and others in establishment clause cases: the motives are presumed to be secular if it is conceivable than an atheist would have taken the same action in the same circumstances.

Is this the first time you've referred to the Discovery Institute as "Disco"? I like it; I think "the Disco Institute" is a much better name for them. It fits their level of seriousness.

Motives, motives, motives. There is all this emphasis on motives. Now the courts not only have to worry about the motives of the public officials who decided to add the stickers, but also have to worry about the motives of members of the public who encouraged or supported the decision to add the stickers. This issue of motives has led to arbitrary and uneven enforcement of the Constitution's establishment clause. The issue of motives in these establishment clause cases should be eliminated. Some California employers who contested unemployment benefit claims argued that employees gave pretexts for quitting a job --- e.g., the relocation of a job beyond commuting distance --- rather than the real reasons which would have made them ineligible for benefits. So the state unemployment office came up with the following rule regarding the unemployment benefit eligibility of workers who quit their jobs: these workers are eligible if they quit the job under circumstances where someone who is truly desirous of keeping the job would quit, e.g., relocation of the job. So I propose the following judicial standard regarding the motives of public officials and others in establishment clause cases: the motives are presumed to be secular if it is conceivable than an atheist would have taken the same action in the same circumstances.

— Larry Fafarman

Motives, motives, motives. There is all this emphasis on motives.

Well, yes. That's a rather basic part of the law. Method, Opportunity and Motive.

But a legal exert such as yourself should know all about that.

Hey Larry, Bill Dembski himself is waiting to hear from YOU, yes YOU! His intelligent design creationism blog is back in business and he could use some super bright folks such as yourself to help carry the message.

Check it out - www.uncommondescent.com

Pretty cool name, huh? uncommon descent it's a play on Darwin's common descent? How clever is THAT? That Dembski is a credit to the creationist cause!

Anyhow, go hook up with him. Here on PT you're just another trolling, whining, cry baby IDiot, but over there you'll be a rocket scientist and a legal expert. How cool is that?

Comment #67870 posted by Greg H on January 5, 2006 09:41 AM So, basically, Larry, you would have us ignore the idea of motive when it comes to interpreting the law? Why is that? Is it because the motive for doing something determines whether that particular act is actually illegal or not?

I couldn't care less what "Larry" "thinks," but, just for laughs--

Can anyone give an example of a state curriculum authority or of an individual school district, anywhere in the country, known to be considering the inclusion of ID psuedoscience in the biology curriculum or otherwise planning to water down evolution instruction, where one or more of the board or authority members have not already clearly and publicly announced their religious motivations, or the religious nature of the constituent pressure being brought to bear?

I didn't think so...

Why do the "Larry"s of the world think that is? C'mon, show us, ya big stand-up maroon.

The issue of motives in these establishment clause cases should be eliminated.

— LaLaLarry

Larry,

You simply cannot disassociate the practice of interpreting the law (any law) with considering the motives of the people accused of violating it. As several people have pointed out, it is permissiable to teach classes about religion, as long as you aren't promoting any individual religious viewpoint. Comparative religion classes come to mind, where the students study many different religious viewpoints in a compare and contrast sort of environment. So if the purpose, the motive if you will, of the people wanting the course taught is to educate folks about religion in general, that's perfectly acceptable and wouldn't violate the establishment clause, as long as the course was offered as a religion class, not a course on science. Nothing dishonest has been done, and the course is clearly about the study of religion, rather than the establishment of a religion.

If however, the people pushing the class are doing so for unethical reasons, with the intent of indoctrinating, rather than educating, or attempting to promote one specific religious viewpoint, such as Christian special creation, over another (what about the old world on the back of a turtle theory?), and/or attempting to teach this viewpoint outside of its specific scholarly arena, such as in a science class as opposed to a religion class, then yes, you've stepped in Establishment doo doo. Go wipe your shoes.

You can't seperate the motives from the infraction. It doesn't matter what the infraction is - the law isn't (and shouldn't be) a hard line between black and white. A consideration of why is just as important as a consideration of what.

If I write a book on Christianity with the purpose of teaching Christianity in a religion class, my motive is clear. I intend to teach religion.

If I write a book on a Christian based theory with the purpose of masquerading it as science, my motive is also clear, and no less germaine when the Establishment Clause pulls up in the Maxi-bus and knocks the crap out of me.

No apples or oranges about it.

"Very clever young man, but it's turtles all the way down!"

Posted by jim on January 5, 2006 01:02 PM (e) (s) "Very clever young man, but it's turtles all the way down!"

I may be going out on a limb here, as I am not intimately familiar with the details of the Cobb County case. But here's something for our friend Larry:

OK, let's not consider "motives", let's consider the "purpose" of the evolution disclaimer stickers.

There is no "controversy" about evolution among professional biologists, just as there is no controversy about gravity among physicists. Evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Newtonian Mechanics or Relativity is "just a theory".

So, Larry, why was evolution singled out for the disclaimer treatment? Why don't we insist on stickers in Physcis textbooks claiming that Gravity or Maxwell's Equations are "just theories"? Or in Chemistry textbooks that Quantum Mechanics is "just a theory"? What's the purpose of implying that an alternative theory exists when it does not?

What is the purpose of misleading or lying to kids, Larry?

Is this the first time you've referred to the Discovery Institute as "Disco"? I like it; I think "the Disco Institute" is a much better name for them. It fits their level of seriousness.

Creationist larry, guess what? Intelligent design creationism lost in court. Their star "scientist" was there for the defense and he ended up looking like someone who promotes cancer healing magnets.

If they ever get another court case intelligent design creationism will lose again. And again and again.

Intelligent design creationism is not science and never will be. Therefore it will never be taught in public science classrooms.

History will be very cruel to Behe and Dembski. They will be remembered as buffoons, quacks, the same ilk who bring us healing crystals. Dembski is obviously no scientist and Behe is quite simply a moron. I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you.

Cry, whine, object, complain, cover your ears all day long but these are the facts.

Even the Dishonesty Institute is downplaying intelligent design creationism now and putting more emphasis on "teach the controversy" That plan is going to back fire as well.

Thanks to the Dover trial and the sheer dishonesty of the intelligent design creationists there, and the stupidity and ignorance of the defense experts (Dishonest Institute "fellows") The general public is far more aware of the dishonest tactics and distortions promoted by the Dishonesty Institute.

Most everyone in American is now aware that intelligent design creationism is not science and all about promoting creationism.

So put on a black arm band, get yourself a hanky (and blow your nose) and start dealing with your grief issues. IDC is dead. It is not going to come back from the dead.

mo·tive n. [Anglo-French motif, from Middle French motif adjective, moving, from Medieval Latin motivus, from Latin motus, past participle of movēre to move] Something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act - In criminal law, motive is distinguished from intent or mens rea. Although motive is not an element of a crime, evidence regarding motives can be introduced to help establish intent. In contract law, motive is usually distinguished from cause or consideration.

Going back to the original topic, this is a major embarassment for the Court, isn't it. The Judges here seem in effect to be punting, after having wasted a whole hearing grilling one of the lawyers on a detail that turned out to be due to the Court's own misreading and/or poor fact-finding.

They are blaming it on the counsels for not being clear enough "in their advocacy", but that's just unconvincing. The facts were ascertained during trial, the first ruling clearly stated them, and then one or more of the appeal Judges decided on their own that the ruling had gotten them completely wrong, and publicly blamed the plaintiffs' legal team for it, without bothering to do minimal research on the subject (like going back to look at the records), or at least asking both parties for clarifications before putting up the show.

Of course the Judges hold all the cards here, but this non-apology doesn't really cut it, IMO. The appeal hearing was side-tracked on an irrelevancy, the plaintiffs' lawyer was publicly attacked and flustered, and the Court (or members of it) gave out an obvious impression of bias. In fact, from what I read the media were unanimous in saying after the hearing that the original Selman ruling was likely toast, and Creationists went into various degrees of ecstatic paroxysm. I don't know if a new hearing can be called at this point, or the Judges can recuse themselves, but either one or both would seem to be advisable. Even if Selman is reaffirmed, the defendants will likely blame it on the Court's embarassment. The process seems to have been tainted.

Pretty cool name, huh? uncommon descent it's a play on Darwin's common descent? How clever is THAT?

— Mr Christopher

indeed, I think Larry might enjoy the resurrected version of uncommon descent even more than ARN.

I hereby change my recommendations in light of the resurrection of UD, under the well qualified and appropriate leadership of Dave Scott, no less, to recommending Larry to go to UD instead of ARN.

you really do belong there, Larry. they can't afford free beer, but they have plenty of worthless free opinions you would indentify with.

maybe that's better than beer?

According to this article in the Atlanta paper, it sounds like the missing petitions are still a potential problem for the appeals court and the only thing that has been clarified is that the appeals court has accepted the good guy's explanation that he wasn't trying to confuse anybody. On the other hand, the school board lawyer seems to be sewing confusion by denying that the evidence under question ever existed, even though a third party (a newspaper reporter) saw it with his own dang eyes.

Is it possible that the school board will argue that the trial judge rendered his decision in part on evidence (the missing petitions that speak to motive) that was never entered into the trial record? Does this mean the trial court decision will be overturned on a technicality?

Evolution case turns to petitions: School board's attorney doubts documents exist

By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/05/06

Were they a fact or just a theory?

Supporters of evolution instruction --- and a federal judge --- say petitions signed by about 2,300 people played an important role in the Cobb County school board's decision to affix now-famous disclaimer stickers inside science texts. But Wednesday the school board's attorney questioned whether the petitions even existed.

According to testimony in a federal court case and a news report at the time, the petitions, circulated by a parent who opposed evolution instruction, were presented to the school board in March 2002 shortly before it approved the stickers. U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper made note of the petitions when he ruled last year that the stickers unconstitutionally endorsed religion.

But just as they were with Cooper, the petitions have become a key issue in the appeals court in Atlanta, which is now considering whether to let Cooper's ruling stand or overturn it.

During oral arguments last month at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the three judges hearing the case, Ed Carnes, expressed concern that Cooper "got the facts wrong" about the petitions. Carnes took the unusual step of pulling one of the lawyers in the case back to the podium before the packed courtroom and demanded to know whether the attorney had misled the court about the petitions.

On Wednesday, the 11th Circuit cleared up that matter. In a four-page order, the court found that no lawyers arguing the case from either side had misled the 11th Circuit or attempted to do so. "We issue this order to remove any implication that either counsel did," the court said.

But the order added that "parts of the trial record in the case concerning the petition are puzzling," only adding further intrigue to the mystery of the missing petitions.

In a Dec. 22 letter to the 11th Circuit, the lawyer representing the pro-evolution forces, Jeffrey Bramlett of Atlanta, conceded that the March 2002 petitions were never made part of the record during the November 2004 trial presided over by Cooper. But Bramlett said "ample evidence" shows the petitions were collected and delivered.

Two people --- then-Cobb school Superintendent Joseph Redden and Marjorie Rogers, the avowed six-day creationist who ran the petition drive --- have testified the board was given the petitions in March 2002 before it adopted the evolution disclaimers, Bramlett told the court.

In a six-page letter, Bramlett apologized for a "mis-citation" in his legal brief that compounded confusion among the court's judges about the petitions. He also acknowledged that the only petitions entered into evidence in the case were submitted to the school board on Sept. 26, 2002 --- six months after the board adopted the stickers, which called evolution "a theory, not a fact."

Within hours after Bramlett filed his response, the 11th Circuit faxed an order, marked "Urgent-Time Sensitive," to Linwood Gunn, the Cobb school board's attorney.

The court asked Gunn to address the "factual matters asserted in Mr. Bramlett's letter" and address "any evidence regarding the timing of any petitions that may have been filed with the school board."

In his response, filed Tuesday, Gunn repeated his assertion that the trial record does not include a 2,300-signature petition submitted by Rogers, which was referred to in Cooper's ruling. In fact, Gunn told the court, "I have never seen such a document."

When asked in a telephone interview Wednesday if he thought the March 2002 petitions ever existed, Gunn said, "I have my doubts."

But on March 28, 2002, the day the school board adopted the stickers, Rogers told the board she had collected signatures from 2,300 people who were dissatisfied with science texts that espoused "Darwinism unchallenged," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the following day.

A few days later, a Journal-Constitution reporter examined the petitions at the Cobb school system offices and took notes on names and phone numbers of some of the people who had signed.

On Wednesday, Gunn said Cobb school board spokesman Jay Dillon does not believe that ever happened.

In an article published April 14, 2002, the Journal-Constitution again reported that the school board had agreed to insert the stickers inside science texts in response to pressure from several dozen parents who criticized the teaching of evolution. The article said the parents had presented petitions with 2,000 names of county residents who demanded accuracy in textbooks. The Cobb school board did not challenge the existence of the petitions at that time.

Bramlett said Wednesday he believes the petitions were given to the board in March 2002 and thinks the record supports Cooper's finding that it occurred.

"The trial court heard the testimony," Bramlett said of Cooper. "The trial court was there. That's the reason in our legal system that the trial judge's fact finding is entitled to deference by the appellate courts."

Motives, motives, motives. There is all this emphasis on motives.

OK, let's not consider "motives", let's consider the "purpose" of the evolution disclaimer stickers. There is no "controversy" about evolution among professional biologists, just as there is no controversy about gravity among physicists. Evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Newtonian Mechanics or Relativity is "just a theory". So, Larry, why was evolution singled out for the disclaimer treatment? Why don't we insist on stickers in Physcis textbooks claiming that Gravity or Maxwell's Equations are "just theories"? Or in Chemistry textbooks that Quantum Mechanics is "just a theory"? What's the purpose of implying that an alternative theory exists when it does not?

If I shoot and kill someone's dog, I've committed at least one crime - animal cruelty.

Glove ......funny..... thats what Behe did

Thats what happens if you let your dispenstionlism get the better of you.
The fundamenatlist nightmare can be very real to those in the real world paticularly if the nature of men and nuclear physics are confused as not being the same.

Comment #67921 posted by Steviepinhead on January 5, 2006 12:14 PM I couldn't care less what "Larry" "thinks," but, just for laughs--- Can anyone give an example of a state curriculum authority or of an individual school district, anywhere in the country, known to be considering the inclusion of ID psuedoscience in the biology curriculum or otherwise planning to water down evolution instruction, where one or more of the board or authority members have not already clearly and publicly announced their religious motivations, or the religious nature of the constituent pressure being brought to bear?

Bah

dispensationalism

some of this stuff will curl your toes

Comment #67935 Posted by Don Baccus on January 5, 2006 12:50 PM LaLaLarry wrote: ****The issue of motives in these establishment clause cases should be eliminated.***** Well, since the establishment clause is all about motive and intent I guess you'd better start getting to work on a constitutional amendment to remove it ...

Comment #67988 posted by Andrea Bottaro on January 5, 2006 03:14 PM Going back to the original topic, this is a major embarassment for the Court, isn't it. The Judges here seem in effect to be punting, after having wasted a whole hearing grilling one of the lawyers on a detail that turned out to be due to the Court's own misreading and/or poor fact-finding.

They are blaming it on the counsels for not being clear enough "in their advocacy", but that's just unconvincing.

The appeal hearing was side-tracked on an irrelevancy

I don't know if a new hearing can be called at this point, or the Judges can recuse themselves, but either one or both would seem to be advisable.

Comment #67946 posted by rdog29 on January 5, 2006 01:19 PM There is no "controversy" about evolution among professional biologists, just as there is no controversy about gravity among physicists

Evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Newtonian Mechanics or Relativity is "just a theory".

So, Larry, why was evolution singled out for the disclaimer treatment? Why don't we insist on stickers in Physics textbooks claiming that Gravity or Maxwell's Equations are "just theories"? Or in Chemistry textbooks that Quantum Mechanics is "just a theory"?

What's the purpose of implying that an alternative theory exists when it does not?

What is the purpose of misleading or lying to kids, Larry?

I don't think that teaching kids both sides and allowing them to choose for themselves is misleading or lying to them. I think that teaching them just one side is misleading or lying to them.

— Larry

The issue of motives in these establishment clause cases should be eliminated.

— Larry

OK, Larry. Answer me this:

Precisely what is it that evolutionary theory cannot account for? How can you be sure that evolutionary mechanisms cannot produce such a thing?

You advocate teaching kids "both sides". Just what the hell is the "other side"? There is no "other side" because there is no ID "theory" - not even ID "laws" (since you seem intent on making the distinction between laws and theories).

Sorry Larry, if you want "the other side" to exist you have to do more than just point to gaps in our current understanding. Sure, gaps exist, but why is it that no evidence has yet been found that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory? Gaps exist in our understanding of gravity or quantum mechanics - yet no one advocates "teaching the controversy" in physics.

So I'll ask again - where is the data that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory? If no such data exists, then explain why ID is not just a superfluous fantasy?

And since when do theories with no "laws", no predictions and no observable consequences get taught in science class?

Once more with the asking a pig not to wallow.

You see, I have finally found the disconnect between "us" and "them" - us, being of course the folks who recognize ID for what it is, and them being those that support it, and this teach the controversy crap.

The disconnect is, they're not really interested in teaching anything at all. They want the free ability to indoctrinate young folks into a given religious perspective. So while we're all scratching our heads going, "What the hell do you mean it's science?", they're down the pub having a pint with their chums going, "Science? No...but if we dress the Bible up in a lab coat and spectacles, maybe we'll get it through, yeah?"

By the way, I also have a theory, which is mine, and being mine, should be taught because it raises serious controversy to the laws of gravity. You see, there is no gravity. Rather, there are these tiny little demons whose sole purpose is to hold things down. That's why we can't fly. Too many demons. Brids have special glands, fallaciously mislabelled as hollow spaces in their bones, which allow them to scare the demons away for breif periods so they can fly. This whole idea of thrust and aerodynamic lift is just a huge cover-up by centuries of scientists, in every country on the earth, to hide the existence of these demons, and even deny their effect on every day human life, DESPITE THE EVIDENCE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!

It just makes me sick.

Comment #68067 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 5, 2006 06:32 PM (sigh) When Larry gets around to actually reading the Cobb decision, he will learn that the judge did NOT rule based on the board's "motives" ---- indeed he specifically and plainly said that the policy PASSED the "purpose" prong of the Lemon test. It fell flat on the second prong, though.

Comment #68284 posted by rdog29 on January 6, 2006 10:02 AM OK, Larry. Answer me this: Precisely what is it that evolutionary theory cannot account for? How can you be sure that evolutionary mechanisms cannot produce such a thing?

You advocate teaching kids "both sides". Just what the hell is the "other side"? There is no "other side" because there is no ID "theory"

Sure, gaps exist, but why is it that no evidence has yet been found that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory?

And since when do theories with no "laws", no predictions and no observable consequences get taught in science class?

There are lots of things that evolution theory cannot account for. The best known are the "missing links" and irreducible complexity. Some others are (and except for co-evolution, these other things have nothing to do with "design") --- (1) --- the mechanism of the propagation of favorable mutations through many generations of organisms that reproduce by sexual means. (2) --- the mathematical probability or improbability of evolution (3) --- co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms

— Larry

Wislu:

I think you have forgotten possibility number four: He did all his research at creationist sites, found their claims plausible in the absence of any actual knowledge, and has regurgitated them here not realizing they are bogus.

However, I suspect Larry's learnproofing is flawless. I seriously doubt we'll see his references.

(3) --- co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms

— Larry F.

Comment #68275 posted by PvM on January 6, 2006 08:47 AM Larry wrote: I don't think that teaching kids both sides and allowing them to choose for themselves is misleading or lying to them. I think that teaching them just one side is misleading or lying to them. Why? Even Irreducible Complexity has failed as a relevant criticism of evolution theory.

Btw ID is often called intelligent design theory, or the theory of intelligent design by ID proponents. That ID is scientifically vacuous seems to be no reason for them to stop referring to it as a theory.

Even ID's criticisms of evolutionary theory are at most poor science.

Let's see if I get this right,

90% say there's *NO* evidence for ID
3% say they're not sure

I don't see ANY endorsement / support for ID in those statements.

Since the 93% of responses do NOT support ID and survey doesn't say where the other 7% lie, you can't honestly call these numbers "support" from the scientific community. This is especially true since you don't even know what the survey questions asked.

Furthermore, let's also point out that 84% felt that evolution was consistent with a belief in God.

FYI, your article provides nice support for the case against teaching ID in schoolrooms.

Thanks!

Comment #68320 Posted by Greg H on January 6, 2006 12:18 PM Larry F. wrote: ****(3) --- co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms***** Can anyone provide me any links to reading materials on this?

Comment #68275 posted by PvM on January 6, 2006 08:47 AM Larry wrote: I don't think that teaching kids both sides and allowing them to choose for themselves is misleading or lying to them. I think that teaching them just one side is misleading or lying to them. Why? Even Irreducible Complexity has failed as a relevant criticism of evolution theory.

Btw ID is often called intelligent design theory, or the theory of intelligent design by ID proponents. That ID is scientifically vacuous seems to be no reason for them to stop referring to it as a theory.

Even ID's criticisms of evolutionary theory are at most poor science.

So Far Larry has used just about every logical fallacy available, his latest epistle continues a litany of untruths and half truths if he continues and succeeds he will have demonstrated the benefit of ignoring reality for the preservation of stupidity.
Proof by assertion.

Larry said
Logical Fallacy:
set up own straw man and then knock it down with self referential argument.
Logical Fallacy 1:
argumentum ad temperantiam.
This ID(Creationism) proponent does not call it a scientific theory.

Logical Fallacy 2:
Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy).

Even ID's criticisms of evolutionary theory are at most poor science.

As I said above, that is a matter of opinion, even among scientists, And there is no constitutional separation of poor science and state or pseudoscience and state,blah blah babble.However, the courts have ruled that ID cannot even be mentioned in science classes

WRONG---ID is creationism and CAN be mentioned in science classes in that it is NOT science and IS a religious belief.

Comment #68312 posted by Wislu Plethora on January 6, 2006 11:55 AM Larry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> There are lots of things that evolution theory cannot account for. The best known are the "missing links" and irreducible complexity. Some others are (and except for co-evolution, these other things have nothing to do with "design") --- (1) --- the mechanism of the propagation of favorable mutations through many generations of organisms that reproduce by sexual means. (2) --- the mathematical probability or improbability of evolution (3) --- co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms >>>>>>>>>>> Your list indicates that you have done no research on the subject, or did do research but didn't understand what you read, or did do research, understood what you read, and arbitrarily rejected it.

Larry, FYI there's an offshoot message board specifically for off-topic discussions from PT. It's After the Bar Closes. You can find many of the same people over there, and unlike this blog format, anyone is welcome to start a new thread there. Check it out. Go crazy. ;)

larry, since you are a complete and utter moron, could you at least be a LITTLE less of a troll as well.

show some self restraint, and when you think you NEED to post, try curbing that need just once or twice, would ya please?

or hell, go over to UD or ARN where your inanity might be actually appreciated.

do you enjoy abuse?

not one person here, in the week or so you have been posting, has EVER agreed with the gist of ANYTHING you have ever posted.

we have all poured copious amounts of derision on your readily apparent laziness, lack of logic, and downright stupidity.

why persist?

At least slow down a little, eh?

CAN

There are lots of things that evolution theory cannot account for.

— Larry

...I consider these areas to be just mainly potential areas of criticism of evolution theory.

— Larry

Larry,

As a matter of fact, my internet browser has several search engines, including Google. I'm assuming that since, rather than provide information, you responded with a rather uncalled for backwards shot at my ability to look things up for myself, you're either not interested in sharing where you get your information, or you don't know a damned thing.

I was looking for something slightly more scientifically rigorous than Wikipedia. Although judging from your bee/flower example, that was as far as you got, since it's exactly the same example they use there. I got the same result from the "I'm feeling lucky" button.

Does anyone else have any good examples of scientific research done in the co-evolution field? Specifically, I'm looking for something that says that just because two species are currently evolving together means that they always have in the past. Or something that refutes that assumption. Or even addresses the assumption. To me it seems like a pretty broad one, to say that you can't have one without the other. Hell, there are flowers outside my bedroom that manage to pollinate just fine with no bees involved. But then again, I'm scant on knowledge on the subject.

And Larry, I don't expect it to contradict evolution. Or to confirm it. Learning new things should not be about confirming or denying our preconceived notions. If that's all you want, congratulations, you're done. You can go home - because you'll never learn anything else.

Greg,

Try Googling 'evolution symbiosis' (without quotes) for starters.

Greg,
I found this page as an introduction. Hope it is of some help.

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Symbio.htm

Has anyone else noticed that once Larry's arguments start falling apart, like in this thread where he ends up backpedaling from "areas evolution cannot account for" (emphasis mine) to "potential areas of criticism of evolution" he always turns to something like "I think that this stuff is too far off-topic to discuss here"?

Larry is just mentally disturbed, EOS.

If you enjoy arguing with the mentally ill, enjoy.

I personally think the best course is simply to get him to either seek treatment, or else go somewhere where he fits in, like Uncommon Descent.

listen to that little voice in your head, larry. Run to Uncommon Descent.

the lunatics are already running the assylum there. you'll be happy.

Comment #68356 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 6, 2006 02:25 PM show some self restraint, and when you think you NEED to post, try curbing that need just once or twice, would ya please?

not one person here, in the week or so you have been posting, has EVER agreed with the gist of ANYTHING you have ever posted.

At least slow down a little, eh?

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 6, 2006 03:57 PM (e) (s) ... In actuality, I have shown restraint. I avoid initiating off-topic discussions myself, and I resist efforts by others to start off-topic discussions. What about the morons --- including you --- who often make no positive contribution to the discussion but just clutter up this website with ad hominem attacks? Often I get five ad hominem attacks for every response that addresses the issues. ... Speak for yourself. My posts are among the best researched on this website. I often provide a lot of references to back up what I say. I often spend a lot of time finding this reference material. For example, it took me a long time to back up my claim that the Dover opinion was illegal and unethical in using a privileged attorney-client message against the defendants, but I did it. If people here thought that my posts were not persuasive, they would not bother to send so many responses (including ad hominem attacks --- a truly bad post speaks for itself and does not need any response at all)...

I am closing this thread for going off topic. Continue it in After the Bar Closes.